Stop Online Piracy Act

[gsdx]

^ Think I'm getting it. Not that it will bother me. I don't do Facebook and I don't download music or movies or TV shows. (Not even sure I would know how to even do that.)

Thanks for the info.

 

[Corny]

The internet is region and country based.

No it is not. Not by definition, not by design. SOPA is much more than just a "block a website" bill.

Tampering with the DNS system will have wide consequences, not only to americans:
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx


It will abolish the DMCA takedown notices and make it possible for right holder to directly request from ISPs to take down websites to remove content. Since the ISP usually has no "fine" control over - for example - JUB galleries, that would mean that just one person violating the copyright with a non-promo pic in a JUB gallery could mean the whole of JUB being shut down. This of course, would affect ALL users on almost all websites that allow user created, non-pre-screened content.
http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/NC-Analysis_of_HR3261_FINAL.pdf

Also, of course, all tools which would allow you to circumvent certain technical SOPA measures would be illegal too. You know, exactly those tools that allowed the arab spring to happen. Those tools that allow us to tunnel the great firewall of china. That's why the big human rights organizations, besides almost every major internet company, oppose SOPA.

 

[Apollo]

No it is not. Not by definition, not by design. SOPA is much more than just a "block a website" bill.

Tampering with the DNS system will have wide consequences, not only to americans:
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx


It will abolish the DMCA takedown notices and make it possible for right holder to directly request from ISPs to take down websites to remove content. Since the ISP usually has no "fine" control over - for example - JUB galleries, that would mean that just one person violating the copyright with a non-promo pic in a JUB gallery could mean the whole of JUB being shut down. This of course, would affect ALL users on almost all websites that allow user created, non-pre-screened content.
http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/NC-Analysis_of_HR3261_FINAL.pdf

Also, of course, all tools which would allow you to circumvent certain technical SOPA measures would be illegal too. You know, exactly those tools that allowed the arab spring to happen. Those tools that allow us to tunnel the great firewall of china. That's why the big human rights organizations, besides almost every major internet company, oppose SOPA.

My mistake, but essentially, it will only take down the American versions of these sites. I was reading about the danger it posses to DNS and almost everything that happens on the internet.

No doubt, it will be felt internationally.

 

[Corny]

What the heck is an american version of a website supposed to be?

If JUB's ISP is ordered to take down JUB - it's gone. The DNS part is only one part of it. Not mentioning that the DNS system is worldwide. A fragmentation of the DNS is quite a risky and stupid idea - that's why it hasn't been done so far, despite big commercial interest.

 

[Apollo]

What the heck is an american version of a website supposed to be?

If JUB's ISP is ordered to take down JUB - it's gone. The DNS part is only one part of it. Not mentioning that the DNS system is worldwide. A fragmentation of the DNS is quite a risky and stupid idea - that's why it hasn't been done so far, despite big commercial interest.

Well if they bill goes through, we will get to see if fragmentation of DNS is even possible. But I have heard of companies, like isohunt.com for example, just shutting down access to America while the site works perfectly in all other countries due to judicial pressures.

Smaller sites might not make it if they are forced to take down their product. But sites like google and facebook would surivive outside the US if they are forced to shutter their site for US consumers.

I hope we don't get to that point though, I would rather Congress get some sense in their brains and just drop this all together.

 

[seven2go]

I think most people don't know what DNS is.
The domain name of this site is justusboys.com
The IP of the site is 66.115.186.248
DNS translates the name.whatever to the IP.
I've been using OpenDNS for years.
That doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the asinine bill but does explain what DNS is.

 

[Corny]

what isohunt does is something entirely different. They are blocking certain IP ranges from THEIR end. The same happens if non-americans try to access hulu or similar.

Google and facebook both oppose the bill by the way. Quite strongly - so they are not that unconcerned. What congress needs to learn is that the people who are against it are not for "stealing". Some of the formulations in the draft could mean deep packet inspection. That's the equivalent of opening every single (snail) mail that is being send and reading the content - just to stop some people from doing something illegal via snailmail. And you can be quite sure that once they have the infrastructure, piracy won't be the only thing that they will be using it against. They tried to create a somewhat similar (but much simpler and less dangerous) law in Germany - they just didn 't use the copyright angle but wanted the law to prevent child pornography. So who could oppose something against child pornography? Nobody. And if you did .. you were called a pedophile. Well at least in the begining, because suddenly, the generation internet spoke up. And a few months later no party dared to touch that draft with a 10 feet pole, the president didn't sign the law and it never was used.
As others already have said. In the end, they won't stop people from downloading and pirating. They will just make it more difficult until there is another way. Just remember how important DRM was for the very same companies that now support this bill. Anyone remember DRM protected videos? Yeah, that was a great "success"

 

[Apollo]

what isohunt does is something entirely different. They are blocking certain IP ranges from THEIR end. The same happens if non-americans try to access hulu or similar.

Google and facebook both oppose the bill by the way. Quite strongly - so they are not that unconcerned. What congress needs to learn is that the people who are against it are not for "stealing". Some of the formulations in the draft could mean deep packet inspection. That's the equivalent of opening every single (snail) mail that is being send and reading the content - just to stop some people from doing something illegal via snailmail. And you can be quite sure that once they have the infrastructure, piracy won't be the only thing that they will be using it against. They tried to create a somewhat similar (but much simpler and less dangerous) law in Germany - they just didn 't use the copyright angle but wanted the law to prevent child pornography. So who could oppose something against child pornography? Nobody. And if you did .. you were called a pedophile. Well at least in the begining, because suddenly, the generation internet spoke up. And a few months later no party dared to touch that draft with a 10 feet pole, the president didn't sign the law and it never was used.
As others already have said. In the end, they won't stop people from downloading and pirating. They will just make it more difficult until there is another way. Just remember how important DRM was for the very same companies that now support this bill. Anyone remember DRM protected videos? Yeah, that was a great "success"

According to one article, the bill will only require the site to shut down, they wouldn't have to block the IP.

People on reddit have already begun to compile the IP addresses for potential sites that would be affected. I posted it in my OP.

I personally dont see this bill passing. The push back has been strong, and Obama actually understands something about the internet and it's workings. And if he doesn't, his Silicon Valley friends will fill him in. If it passes Congress, I hope he vetos it. Fun to watch.

 

[gsdx]

Damn. Just when I thought I was beginning to start to understand all this and you go and throw technology into it.

If I may quote from Danny Glover: "I'm getting too old for this shit."

 

[looseliam]

It's already been delayed because of serious backlash and pushback. I hope they re-write the bill and fix the serious problems with it.

Oh, I bet they're just waiting to stick this into the next national defence authorisation act or some other ueber-huge piece of legislation that must be passed.

It comes down to this: it is not the governments job to protect this industry - well, not like this, anyway. There are already avenues it can pursue when violations occur. It's an attempt to take the cost of enforcement/ and prosecution from the copyright holders and place it on third parties and/or the government. Instead of Universal having to go to court and pay their attorneys, they can instead just call the police (essentially) and the state pays for the trial.

 

[seven2go]

If the assholes pushing this shit think the TEA Party is something.........wait till the INTERNET generation shows its teeth.........and that includes even ME....... .......

They ain't seen NUTTIN yet.......

 

[Apollo]

Oh, I bet they're just waiting to stick this into the next national defence authorisation act or some other ueber-huge piece of legislation that must be passed.

It comes down to this: it is not the governments job to protect this industry - well, not like this, anyway. There are already avenues it can pursue when violations occur. It's an attempt to take the cost of enforcement/ and prosecution from the copyright holders and place it on third parties and/or the government. Instead of Universal having to go to court and pay their attorneys, they can instead just call the police (essentially) and the state pays for the trial.

Well the FCC was taking up the job of regulating the internet, and in my opinion, doing a good job of it.

The FCC was doing it's best to maintain strict net neutrality so that companies couldn't just come in and turning the internet into something similar to Cable is these days (paying for premium sites etc etc) but Comcast and others started to feel like they were overstepping their directive and went running to congress, and here we are today.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

For those who haven't bothered to read the bill, it sort of goes like this:

1) Only the Attorney General can request that the site be shut down, not corporations or even individuals. This provides some oversight, as those records are public and so can be traced. Also, as noted in the bill, all First Amendment protections are still in place, providing more oversight (albeit from private organizations), as well as ensuring that a person using, say, naked pictures that has a legal right to use them can still use them.

2) The site needs to either remove offending material from the site or face further prosecution. In other words, "stop it or we'll be back". After five days, should it persist, the site will be dropped from search engines, its server will prevented from issuing th site, advertisers must stop advertising there, and it could face harsher penalties.

3) The law is expanded to cover not only copyrighted material, but unsafe materials as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the deal: The two basic views here are that content should be free and that if I do something as an artist, I want to be paid fairly for time and other investments. Although I'm a firm believer that the government should protect its constituents as needed (which is sorta what I pay it for) and that a certain number of illegal downloads are needed for success (it does constitute a form of advertising), I'm going with option #2.

Content should not be free and should definitely be protected. Unless you want to subsidize everyone that calls themselves an artist, you need to allow artists to make a fair living from what they do, and to allow that artist the option to succeed magnificently, just like in any other profession. I appreciate that few mechanics make more than a $100,000 a year, but they also rarely have the ability to affect people on a global scale and the money they deal with just isn't on the same scale. If someone is offering the song I just spent blood and tears on for free, I think getting offended is the least thing I do. But, as supporting a law that allows me to track down and shoot the offender is unlikely to happen, I'm going to welcome greater protections on my song.

Most of the arguments I've heard against this law are of four basic types: "Let's stick it to The Man", "I want my free downloads", "Corporations suck", and "It's unconstitutional!" Well, the first is obviously someone who has never really had anything important to them, as they would seek to protect it no matter what, even if it involved government regulations. The second doesn't seem to understand the concept that creating something requires something to create it from, even if it's just time and learning how to do it, and that a creator cannot endlessly put time and effort into something; that is, at some point that person actually needs to see some kind of support for the action, and financial support is the most useful. The third is just a moron; all businesses will eventually become larger or die, and that there are advantages to the pooling of all that money as it allows the creation of bigger things. Just look at how much a movie costs, and you'll get the idea really quick. The fourth is delusional, as if the law is truly unconstitutional it will be struck down quickly.

As a content provider myself, I'm sort of liking this law. Until they add a rider that allows me track down and kill a copyright offender, this will do.

RG

 

[Corny]

Have you actually read the bill? Or any of the many papers and posts in this thread? Or did you just come here to whine about people "stealing" your work? Because, quite frankly - it seems so.

This bill will not stop people from stealing your work.
People do not oppose this bill because they want to steal your work.

 

[Apollo]

A petition in opposition of SOPA.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...eaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR

 

[Ninja108]

Piracy is always going to exist in one form or another. As soon as a new system to detect is put out, one will be done to be it and the cycle will go on.

 

[looseliam]

Have you actually read the bill? Or any of the many papers and posts in this thread? Or did you just come here to whine about people "stealing" your work? Because, quite frankly - it seems so.

This bill will not stop people from stealing your work.
People do not oppose this bill because they want to steal your work.

but... but... what about the children?

I ever so hate the "if you against this, then you're for that" rhetoric.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Have you actually read the bill? Or any of the many papers and posts in this thread?

Gee, not only did I sum up the bill and provide a link to it, but I also summed up most of the posts in this thread. Have you actually read the bill? And if so, show how it prevents me from buying a movie; if you can do that, I may actually buy the censorship argument.

Or did you just come here to whine about people "stealing" your work? Because, quite frankly - it seems so.

Literacy: The Lost Skill. Using simple words, then: I like the bill as it gives artists more protections. Which people like you think is a bad thing.

This bill will not stop people from stealing your work.
People do not oppose this bill because they want to steal your work.

No; they oppose it because it's a knee-jerk response to anything that even smacks of limiting their illegal downloads. Like I've said: I'm all for illegal downloads. TO A DEGREE. However, limiting illegal downloads is not the same as censorship; the government is not preventing you from getting your hands on a given movie or preventing its distribution (note: that actually would be censorship). They are merely saying to actually use the artist's preferred means of distribution.

All you've done is call this censorship without actually saying how it censorship. Care to elaborate?

RG

 

[looseliam]

^ it isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It's simply people who can see the forest for the trees.

When liberties are eroded slowly, people tend to go along with it. Were it all to happen at-once, everyone would notice.

This legislation is a stepping stone to further censorship.

And as for the artists I have the following: work more, bitch less. WHen I built an engine for someone, I was paid once. I wasn't allowed to charge a fee per year or per mile for it's continued use. What did I do? I worked on other projects. I detest the select few who have this "build once charge forever" mentality.

 

[looseliam]

^ people? No. However, under the proposed legislations, youtube could be take off-line for violation.